crop_to_active_take

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly discloses the destructive behavior: 'discarding all other takes.' This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what gets destroyed (other takes) and what is preserved (the active take). It does not contradict the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key behavioral consequence. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the item has only one take, or if no active take is set) and does not mention whether the operation is undoable. Given the destructiveHint annotation, a bit more cautionary context would be valuable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. However, the parameter names (track_index, item_index) are self-explanatory and the description clarifies the operation's target ('a media item'). The description does not add detail about indexing semantics (e.g., zero-based vs one-based), but the schema itself is minimal and the names are clear enough.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Crop'), a specific resource ('a media item'), and the exact scope ('to its active take, discarding all other takes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_take, explode_takes, and set_active_take, which operate on takes differently.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case: when you want to reduce a multi-take item to just the active take. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_take or explode_takes, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must have multiple takes, an active take must exist).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.